4. Calang & Philtranco v. P.

G.R. No. 190696 (August 3, 2010)

Facts: Petitioner Rolito Calang was driving a Philtranco bus, owned by petitioner
Philtranco when its rear left side hit the front left portion of a Sarao jeep coming
from the opposite direction. As a result of the collision, the jeeps driver, lost
control of the vehicle, and bumped and killed a bystander. The jeep turned turtle
before finally stopping. Two of the jeeps passengers were instantly killed while
the other passengers sustained serious physical injuries.

The prosecution charged Calang with multiple homicide, multiple serious

physical injuries and damage to property thru reckless imprudence before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC found Calang guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of reckless imprudence resulting to multiple homicide, multiple physical injuries
and damage to property, and sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty.
The RTC also ordered Calang and Philtranco, jointly and severally, to pay death
indemnities and other damages.

The petitioners appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals (CA)
however the CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto.

Now, the petitioners claimed, among others, that there was no basis to
hold Philtranco jointly and severally liable with Calang because the former was not
a party in the criminal case (for multiple homicide with multiple serious physical
injuries and damage to property thru reckless imprudence) before the RTC.

Issue: Whether or not petitioners’ claim that there was no basis to hold
Philtranco jointly and severally liable with Calang is tenable.

Ruling:Yes, petitioners’ claim that there was no basis to hold Philtranco jointly and
severally liable with Calang is tenable.

The Supreme Court held that the RTC and the CA both erred in holding
Philtranco jointly and severally liable with Calang. The Court emphasized that
Calang was charged criminally before the RTC. Undisputedly, Philtranco was not a
direct party in this case. Since the cause of action against Calang was based on
delict, both the RTC and the CA erred in holding Philtranco jointly and severally
liable with Calang, based on quasi-delict under Articles 2176[1] and 2180[2] of the
Civil Code. Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code pertain to the vicarious liability
of an employer for quasi-delicts that an employee has committed. Such provision
of law does not apply to civil liability arising from delict.

If at all, Philtrancos liability may only be subsidiary. Article 102 of the

Revised Penal Code states the subsidiary civil liabilities of innkeepers,
tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments, as follows:
 In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers,
tavern- keepers, and any other persons or corporations shall be
civilly liable for crimes committed in their establishments, in all
cases where a violation of municipal ordinances or some general or
special police regulations shall have been committed by them or
their employees.

Innkeepers are also subsidiary liable for the restitution of

goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses from guests
lodging therein, or for the payment of the value thereof, provided
that such guests shall have notified in advance the innkeeper
himself, or the person representing him, of the deposit of such
goods within the inn; and shall furthermore have followed the
directions which such innkeeper or his representative may have
given them with respect to the care of and vigilance over such
goods. No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence
against or intimidation of persons unless committed by the
innkeepers employees.

The foregoing subsidiary liability applies to employers, according to Article

103 of the Revised Penal Code, which reads:

The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding

article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and
corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies
committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or
employees in the discharge of their duties.

The provisions of the Revised Penal Code on subsidiary liability Articles 102
and 103 are deemed written into the judgments in cases to which they are
applicable. Thus, in the dispositive portion of its decision, the trial court need not
expressly pronounce the subsidiary liability of the employer.[3] Nonetheless,
before the employers subsidiary liability is enforced, adequate evidence must
exist establishing that (1) they are indeed the employers of the convicted
employees; (2) they are engaged in some kind of industry; (3) the crime was
committed by the employees in the discharge of their duties; and (4) the
execution against the latter has not been satisfied due to insolvency. The
determination of these conditions may be done in the same criminal action in
which the employees liability, criminal and civil, has been pronounced, in a hearing
set for that precise purpose, with due notice to the employer, as part of the
proceedings for the execution of the judgment.[4]